Recently, the Calcutta High Court dealt with a significant dispute concerning interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, where a husband challenged an ex-parte order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter. The controversy revolved around allegations of suppression of facts, non-disclosure of professional income, and procedural irregularities in granting interim relief without obtaining mandatory financial disclosures from both parties.
Brief Facts
The marriage between the parties was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act in 2014, and a daughter was born out of the wedlock in 2020. Due to marital discord and allegations of cruelty, the wife left the matrimonial home and initiated multiple proceedings including a criminal complaint under Sections 498A/406 IPC, a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The Magistrate, on the very day the Domestic Incident Report was filed, granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs.12,000 per month to the wife and Rs.8,000 per month to the minor daughter. The husband challenged this order before the High Court contending that the wife was a highly qualified Critical Care Specialist doctor and had concealed her professional earning capacity while portraying herself as unemployed and dependent on her father.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Magistrate illegally granted interim maintenance without obtaining mandatory financial affidavits as required under Rajnesh v. Neha. He argued that the wife concealed her status as a qualified Critical Care Specialist doctor and falsely projected herself as unemployed and dependent. It was further submitted that while he was willing to maintain the child, the wife herself was financially capable of supporting herself.
Contentions of the Respondent
The counsel for the Respondent argued that the revision petition was not maintainable because an appeal remedy was available under the Domestic Violence Act. She submitted that the Magistrate was empowered to grant urgent interim relief to prevent financial hardship. The wife further contended that despite her qualifications, she was not presently employed due to matrimonial disputes and childcare responsibilities, and therefore required maintenance for herself and the minor child.
Observation of the Court
The Court observed that the impugned order suffered from a “procedural leap” as the Magistrate quantified maintenance “on the very day the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was filed” without directing the parties to disclose their financial status through affidavits. Relying upon Rajnesh v. Neha, the High Court emphasized that the “Disclosure Regime” laid down by the Supreme Court is mandatory in nature and cannot be bypassed even at the ad-interim stage. The Court noted that “the emergency power under Section 23 cannot be used to circumvent the due process of financial transparency.”
The Court further held that the wife’s professional qualifications and earning capacity were highly relevant factors while determining her entitlement to personal maintenance. It observed that the wife was “not merely educated” but a “Specialist Doctor in a high-demand field,” and therefore her claim of financial dependency required strict scrutiny. The Court remarked that “the law does not permit the beneficial umbrella of the P.W.D.V. Act to be utilized as a subsidy for voluntary professional inertia,” adding that the Magistrate failed to consider the “earning capacity” of the wife before awarding maintenance.
At the same time, the High Court drew a clear distinction between the wife’s maintenance claim and the rights of the minor daughter. The Court reiterated that the child’s right to maintenance is “absolute and non-delegable” and remains independent of the disputes between the spouses. It observed that the child should not become a “litigational casualty” in the matrimonial battle and held that the amount awarded for the daughter was “just, reasonable, and commensurate with the socio-economic profile of the parties.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court partly allowed the revision petition and set aside the direction granting Rs.12,000 per month as maintenance to the wife. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh adjudication after obtaining affidavits of assets and liabilities from both parties. However, the Court upheld the award of Rs.8,000 per month towards maintenance of the minor daughter.
Case Title: Jyotirmoy Biswas v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 3578 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Pritam Choudhury
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das and Mr. Dipendu Sarkar
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
